MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981520454 · doi:10.1021/ed200249v

Choosing the Greenest Synthesis: A Multivariate Metric Green Chemistry Exercise

2011· article· en· W1981520454 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Education · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicChemistry and Chemical Engineering
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnivariateMetric (unit)Multivariate statisticsAsset (computer security)Set (abstract data type)Multivariate analysisProcess (computing)Environmental impact assessmentAtom economyComputer scienceEnvironmental economicsOperations managementChemistryEngineeringMachine learningEconomicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to correctly identify the greenest of several syntheses is a particularly useful asset for young chemists in the growing green economy. The famous univariate metrics atom economy and environmental factor provide insufficient information to allow for a proper selection of a green process. Multivariate metrics, such as those used in life-cycle assessment (LCA) to determine environmental impact, are much more informative. A team exercise was developed, based upon nine LCA environmental impact metrics, where students are tasked with selecting the greenest synthesis from a set of literature procedures. Students select the greenest synthesis by quantifying the environmental impact of all the materials involved in each synthesis rather than solely the quantity of generic waste produced, as occurs with univariate metrics.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it